# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 45 32

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es Sh arb on o,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,

v.

Nor th ern Sta te s Po wer Co m pa ny, doi ng bu si ne ss as Xc el Ener gy, Inc.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 18
Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 6, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es Sh arb on o su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, Nor th ern St at es Po wer Co m pa ny,

al le gi ng th at Nor th ern fai le d to acco m m od at e hi s di sa bi li t y i n v i o la ti on of th e

A mer i can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12 10 1 et se q. , an d th e

Thi s op in io n is fil ed by Ch ie f Ju dg e Sm it h an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on un de r Eig ht h *

Ci rcu it Ru le 47 E.Mi nn es ot a Hum an Ri gh ts Act, Mi nn

. St at

. § 36 3A.0 1 et se q. The di st ric t co ur t 1

g r a nt ed su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Nor th ern an d di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt

. We

affi rm

.

I.

W e reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav o r ab le to Sh arb on o. Sh arb on o was

in jure d by an el ect ric sh oc k on a job si te in 19 91

. He su ffer ed da m ag e to hi s le ft fo ot

th at req ui red th e am

pu ta ti on of se ve ral to es an d su rg ic al reco ns tru ct io n of th e fo ot

. Afte r reh ab il it at io n, Sh arb on o ret ur ne d to wor k as a jou rn ey m an li ne m an wit h se ve ral

di ffer en t em

pl oyers, al th ou gh he carr ie d a m ed ic al res tri ct io n th at he no t wear st eel

to ed bo ot s. Sh arb on o s ta rte d wo rk in g fo r Nor th ern in 19 93 an d b ecame a ful l-t im e jou rn ey m an li ne m an wit h No rth ern in 19 97

.

Nor th ern ’s po li cy be fo re 20 08 req ui red cert ai n em pl oyee s faci ng ha zard ou s

wor k co nd it io ns to wear “ sa fet y -to e fo ot wear” th at m et th e req ui rem en ts of Am eri can

Nati on al St an da

rd s In stitu te st an da rd Z-41

. Nor th ern , ho wev er, al lo wed an ex cep ti on
ba se d on a “ st at em en t fro m th e em pl oyee’s do ct or st at in g he /s he can no t wear sa fet y

to e fo ot wear.” Sh arb on o di d no t wear a st eel -to ed bo ot on hi s le ft fo ot whi le wor ki ng

fo r Nor th ern be fo re 2 00 8.

As of 20 08

, h o wev er, Nor th ern ’s po li cy no lo ng er pr ov id ed fo r ex cep ti on s.
The co m pa ny’ s pe rs on al pr ot ect iv e e q ui pm en t po li cy m an da te d th at cert ai n

em pl oyees, in cl ud in g Sh arb on o, wear sa fet y fo ot wear. The po li cy al so req ui red th at

th e fo ot wear be m ark ed wit h a st am p t ha t s ho wed co m

pl ia nc e wit h a n i nt ern at io na l

pe rfo rm an ce s ta nd ard for saf et y foo twea r kn own as ASTM F2 41 3.

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Nor th ern th en req ui red Sh arb on o to be gi n weari ng st eel -to ed bo ot s. Thro ug h

a d i s a b il it y co ns ul ta nt

, Nor th ern of fere d Sh arb on o se ve ral su gg es ti on s to he l p

m it ig at e th e im

pa ct of th e st eel -to ed bo ot s. Sh arb on o al so ob ta in ed m od ifi ed bo ot s,
bu t th e bo ot s were no t cert ifi ed as co m pl ia nt wit h th e ASTM st an da rd

, an d Nor th ern
di d no t al lo w hi m to wear th em

. Sh arb on o be ga n to wear st eel -to ed bo ot s th at were

st am pe d as co m

pl ia nt

, bu t st art ed to ex pe rie nc e di sc om fo rt in hi s le ft fo ot

. Ove r th e

ne xt se ve ral y ears , Sh arb on o co nt in ue d to ex pe rie nc e pa in fro m weari n g th e st eel

to ed bo ot s.

In 2 0 1 1, Sh arb on o in crea si ng ly us ed hi s si ck le av e to co ve r ab se nc es fro m

wor k. In No ve m

be r of th at y ear, Sh arb on o be ga n ta ki ng le av e in te rm it te nt ly u nd er

th e Fam il y an d Med ic al Le av e Act. Sh arb on o req ue st ed acco m m od at io n fro m

Nor th ern fo r hi s f

o o t im pa irment in an Apr il 20 12 m eet in g wit h a su pe rv is or

. Sh arb on o su bm it te d an ad di ti on al do ct or ’s no te th at sa id it was m ed ic al ly ne ces sa ry

fo r Sh arb on o to ceas e weari ng th e st eel -to ed bo ot s, bu t he rece iv ed no res po ns e fro m

th e su pe rv is or

.

In la te Ju ne 20 12

, Sh arb on o’s un io n req ue st ed on hi s be ha lf th at th e co m pa ny

w a iv e th e st eel -to ed bo ot req ui rem en t. In Aug us t, Nor th ern de ni ed Sh arb on o’ s

req ue st fo r acco m

m od at io n. Nor th er n f

o ll owe d up wit h a le tt er sa y in g th at th e

co m pa ny d en ie d th e req ue st be cau se it “ can no t el im in at e th e po te nt ia l fo ot ha zard s

th at are pr es en t in th e da il y wor k of a li ne m an .” Nor th ern ex pl ai ne d th at “ gr an ti ng

th is waiv er wou ld be a vi ol at io n of Co m p a n y p o l ic y an d a vi ol at io n of OSHA

st an da rd 19 10 .13 6.”

In Octo be r 20 12

, Nor th ern of fere d t o h e l p Sh arb on o fin d an ot he r job at th e

co m pa ny du rin g wha t th e Nor th ern cal le d a ni ne ty-day job se arc h

. In th is sa m e

mee t in g, Nor th ern in fo rm ed Sh arb on o th at he was el ig ib le un de r th e co ll ect i v e
ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t fo r “ di sa bi li ty re t i r e ment be ne fit s,” in cl ud in g pa y at ro ug hl y

-3

-fif

ty pe rcen t of hi s ba se in co m e an d in su ran ce be ne fit s. Sh arb on o ch os e to ret ire an d

rece iv e th e d is ab il it y

ret ire m en t b en efi ts

.

In Nov em be r, co m pa ny rep res en ta ti ve s di sc us se d Sh arb on o’s req ue st to ret ire

an d rece iv e th e di sa b i l i t y r e ti rem en t be ne fit s. Nor th ern arra ng ed a m ed ic al

ap po in tm en t fo r Sh arb on o, an d th e ev al ua ti ng do ct or op in ed th at Sh arb on o sh ou ld be

ab le to ob ta in a co m

pl ia nt

, m od ifi ed bo ot fro m an or th ot ic s co m pa ny. W he n

Nor th ern ’s m an ag er of di sa bi li ty so lu ti on s co nt act ed th e or th o t i c s co m pa ny, th e

co m pa ny fir st to ld Nor th ern th at it co ul d a c q u i r e th e de si red bo ot s. On fu rth er

in qu iry, ho wev er, a m an uf act ur er to ld th e or th ot ic s co m pa ny th at th e bo ot s co ul d be

st am pe d wit h th e “ ASTM F2 41 3- 11 st am p” on ly if “ so m eo ne fro m OSHA” ob se rv ed

th e bo ot -m ak in g pr oc es s. The or th ot ic s co m pa ny th en in fo rm ed Nor th ern th at whi le

a cu st om bo ot co ul d be m an uf act ur ed

, it co ul d no t be st am pe d wit h th e ASTM st am

p.

Nor th ern th en in f

o r med Sh arb on o th at it was pl aci ng hi m in a ret ire d st at us wit h

di sa bi li ty reti rem en t b en efi ts

.

Sh arb on o su ed

, al le gi ng se ve ral vi ol at io ns of th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s

Act an d th e Mi nn es ot a H u man Ri gh ts Act. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Nor th ern on al l clai m s. Sh arb on o app eal s on ly hi s clai m s th at

Nor th ern fai le d to acco m m od at e hi s di sa bi li ty as req u i r e d b y t he fed eral an d st at e

st at ut es

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t cou rt’s gran t of s um m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g

th e ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fer e n c e s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

Sh arb on o. Mac key v. Jo hn so n , 86 8 F.3 d 7 2 6

, 7 2 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if “ th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to

an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R.

Ci v. P. 5 6( a).

-4

-II.

Sh arb on o al le ge s a cl ai m un de r bo th th e ADA a n d t h e M in ne so ta Hum an

Ri gh ts Act. W he re a pl ai nt iff is di sa bl ed un de r th e ADA, we ha ve ap pl ie d th e sa m e

st an da rd s to di sa bi li ty cl ai m s un de r bo th st at ut es , se e Ko bu s v. Co ll

. of St

. Sc ho la st ic a, In c. , 60 8 F.3 d 10 34

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), bu t a rece nt Mi nn es ot a Co ur t

of App eal s de ci si on he ld th at th e st at e st at ut e pl aces fewer du ti es on em pl oyers th an
do es th e ADA. Se e McBee v. Tea m In du s., In c. , 90 6 N.W .2d 88 0, 88 7 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 18 ), pe ti ti o n fo r re vi ew gr an te d

, No. A17 -0 06 0 (Mi nn

. Mar

. 28

, 20 18 ).

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at Nor th ern sa ti sf ie d al l of th e ADA’ s req ui rem en ts

, we ne ed

no t de ci de whe th er cl ai m s un de r th e ADA an d th e Mi nn es ot a Hu man R i g ht s Act

co nc ern in g t he in te ract iv e p ro ces s s ho ul d n ow b e an al y zed di ffer en tl y

.

The ADA pr oh ib it s em pl oyers fro m di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t qu al ifi ed

in di vi du al s on th e ba si s of di sa bi li ty. 42 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( a). Dis cri m in at io n in cl ud es

“ no t m ak in g r e a so na bl e acco m m od at io ns to th e kn own ph y si cal or m en ta l

li m it at io ns ” of an em

pl oyee, un le ss th e em

pl oyer c a n “d e mon st rat e th at th e

acco m m od at io n wou ld im

po se an un du e ha rd sh ip on th e op erat io n of th e bu si ne ss .”

Id

. § 1 21 12 (b )(5 )(A).

“ To de te rm in e whe th er an acco m m od at io n fo r th e em

pl oyee is ne ces sa ry , an d

if so , wha t th at acco m

m od at io n m ig ht be

, it is ne c es sa ry fo r th e em pl oyer an d

em pl oyee to en ga ge in an ‘int erac ti ve pr oc es s.’” Peyt on v. Fred ’s St or es of Ark., In c. , 56 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 2 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Fjel le st ad v. Piz za Hut of Am., In c. , 18 8

F.3 d 94 4, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). To es ta bl is h th at an em pl oyer fai le d to pa rti ci pa te in

th e in te ract iv e pr oc es s, an em pl oyee m us t de m on st rat e th at th e em pl oyer kn ew ab ou t

hi s di sa bi li ty, an d th at th e em pl oyee req ue st ed an acco m m od at io n fo r hi s di sa bi li ty.

Id

. The re is n o d i sp ut e he re ab ou t th os e el em en ts

. The em pl oyee m us t th en pr ov e

th at th e em

pl oyer “ di d no t m ak e a go od fai th effo rt to as si st th e em pl oyee in se ek in g

-5

-acco m

m od at io ns .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Fjel le st ad

, 18 8 F.3 d at 95 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d

th at Sh arb on o fa il ed to ge ne rat e a m at eri al di sp ut e o n t hi s el em en t.

Sh a r b on o rai se s th ree arg um en ts why Nor th ern di d no t m ak e a go od fai th

effo rt. He fir st co nt en ds th at Nor th ern en ga ge d in “ in ex cu sa bl e de la y ,” be cau se th e

co m pa ny di d no t ti m el y res po nd to a req ue st fo r acco m m od at i o n in Octo be r 20 11

. Sh arb on o di d no t pr es en t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, ho wev er, th at he m ad e a req ue st at th at

ti m e. He co ul d no t reca ll whe th er he as ke d fo r an acco m m od at io n in an Octo be r 20 11

m eet in g wit h hi s su pe rv is or , an d th e su pe rv is or ’s no te s do no t m en ti on su ch a req ue st

. The em pl oyer is no t req ui red to un de rta ke th e in te ract iv e pr oc es s un ti l th e em pl oyee

m ak es a req ue st fo r acco m m od at io n. EEOC v. Pro d. Fab ri ca to rs
, In c. , 76 3 F.3 d 96 3,

97 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The earl ie st req ue st su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce oc cu rred in Apr il

20 12

. N o rth ern res po nd ed wit hi n fo ur m on th s, an d Sh arb on o was pa id du rin g th e

in te rim w h i l e us in g si ck le av e. Und er th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e ti m in g of Nor th ern ’s

res po ns e is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e co m pa ny di d no t act in go od

fai th

. Se e Lo ul

se ge d v . Akzo No be l In c. , 17 8 F .3d 73 1, 7 37 (5t h C ir. 1 99 9)

.

Sh arb on o ne xt arg ue s th at Nor th ern pr em at ur el y ab an do n e d th e in te ract iv e

pr oc es s. He co m

pl ai ns th at aft er th e or th ot ic s co m pa ny no ti fie d Nor th ern in Feb ru ary

20 13 th at it co ul d no t pr od uc e a bo ot th at qu al ifi ed fo r th e ASTM st am p, Nor th ern

fai le d to pu rs ue m or e op ti on s to fin d a co nf or m in g bo ot

. Bu t on ce Nor th ern w as

in fo rm ed b y a n ex pe rt in th e in du st ry th at it co ul d no t pr od uc e a bo ot th at m et

Sh arb on o’s ne ed s an d qu al ifi ed fo r th e ASTM st am p, it was reas on a b l e f

o r t h e

co m pa ny to di sc on ti nu e it s effo rts

. Nor th ern tri ed in go od fai th to fin d a so lu ti on th at

wou ld pe rm it Sh arb on o to wor k. The co m pa ny ceas ed lo ok in g on ly whe n it was

in fo rm ed th a t t h e ob

jecti ve of a st am

pe d, co m pl ia nt bo ot was no t ach ie va bl e. Thi s

e vi de nc e do es no t su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e co m pa ny fai le d to m ak e g o o d f a i t h

effo rts

.

-6

-Sh arb on o co nt e n d s fin al ly th at Nor th ern erro ne ou sl y cl ai m ed th at fed eral

reg ul at io ns req ui re it s em pl oyees to wear st am

pe d bo ot s, an d th at Nor th ern ’s rel ia nc e

on th e reg ul at io n sh ows it s la ck of go od fai th

. The reg ul at io n se em s to p e r mi t

fo ot wear if an “ em

pl oyer de m on st rat es ” th at th e fo ot wear “ is at le as t as effect iv e as

pr ot ect iv e fo ot wear th at is co ns tru ct ed in acco rd an ce wit h on e of ” se ve ral en um erat ed

in du st ry sa fet y st an da rd s. 29 C.F.R. § 19 10 .13 6( b) (2 ). Bu t Sh arb on o ne ve r di sp ut ed

th e co m pa ny’ s in te rp ret at io n of th e reg ul at io n du rin g th e in te ract iv e pr oc es s, an d th e

em pl oyer m ad e go od fai th effo rts to se cu re a bo ot th at m et th e pe rfo rm an ce st an da rd s

fo r sa fet y fo ot wear an d bo re th e ASTM st am p. Und er t h e c irc um st an ces , th at

Nor th ern di d no t at te m

pt to de m on st rat e th at so m e ot he r bo ot wou ld be “ as effe ct iv e”

as a bo ot th at co nf

or m ed to th e pe rfo rm an ce sta nd ard s is in su ffi ci en t to sh ow a la ck

of go od fai th in th e in te ract iv e p ro ces s.

W e th us ag ree with th e di st ric t co ur t th at Nor th ern in te ract ed in go od fai th as

a m at te r of la w. Nor th ern m e t t w i c e w i t h Sh arb on o in 20 13 ab ou t hi s req ue st fo r

acco m m od at io n an d of

fere d to he lp Sh arb on o wit h th e pr oc es s of ap pl y in g fo r a
d iff eren t job wit h th e co m

pa ny. Afte r Sh arb on o el ect ed to ret ire wit h di sa bi li ty

ret ire m en t be ne fit s, Nor th ern st il l at te m pt ed to ob ta in a bo ot th at wou ld al lo w hi m to

wor k. Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d, Sh arb on o’s arg um en ts do no t es ta bl is h a ge nu in e
di sp ut e of m at eri al fact fo r tri al

. Sh arb on o co m pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to

co ns tru e th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to hi m as th e no n- m ov an t, bu t th e fact s

th at he id en ti fie s are no t m at eri al to th e le ga l di sp ut e. The reco rd su pp or ts th e di st ric t

co ur t’s co nc lu si on

.

* * *

-7

-The jud gm en t of the di st ric t cou rt is affi rm ed

. The m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e

reco rd on ap pe al wit h ev id en ce th at was no t pr es en te d to th e di st ric t co ur t is de ni ed

. Se e Bar ry v. Bar ry , 78 F.3d 37 5, 3 79 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-